RE: Manning case moving forward

RE: Manning case moving forward (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BoxwineForBrunch -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 10:17:55 AM)
originally, manning was just a schmucky kid with more guts than brains. it took the full, gruesome weight of the us military/government/corporate interests to make him into a martyr. al jazeera has an excellent editorial about the situation http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011121693328630608.html .

Aswad -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 6:58:38 PM)
~fr~ Manning is a hero, and deserves to be treated as such. A reprimande for being somewhat careless/indiscriminate is in order, and the time served should be enough to cover that. Note that I know people who would've prevented the 7/22 massacre up here if they had done what Manning did, and a lot more that are currently refusing to speak up about the fact that the details surrounding it are just the tip of the iceberg, and the event itself potentially the first pebble in a landslide... simply because people like Manning- the people who do the right thing, despite the potential cost- are treated like Manning was (and is, and probably will be). To secure enough evidence to make people listen is difficult. To present it so people care, even more so. I know this from personal experience. Being able to walk the fine line required to get the truth out and acted on, without potentially inflicting some collateral damage, is a rare trait that also requires rare circumstances. The documents leaked are too substantial to screen in detail, at least before someone catches on and prevents the alarm from being raised, and stripping it all down to a few core issues will lead to far less press than is required to actually get anything done. He could perhaps have done a coarse sort up front, but that shortcoming doesn't qualify for more than he's been through. When you want to make an omelette, it's inevitable that it'll be bad news for a few eggs. That's accepted in a lot of other areas. Doctors give patients medicines that can cause serious side effects, even death, because on the balance it will save more lives than doing nothing. Armies sacrifice troops to save more troops, or to accomplish objectives of perceived vital importance. Oil is consumed by probably just about everyone on this forum, despite it being a potential candidate for a crime against humanity to put oil to the crude uses we do (running out means an end to most plastics, many medicines, entire industries, and so forth), but it keeps our societies running. Nuclear power can be a real hazard, most recently in Fukushima, but along with the oil, it keeps the wheels turning so we don't have to die by the billions in going back to furs and sharpened sticks. Obviously, the French Revolution claimed some lives, too. There's no reason why whistleblowing shouldn't be accepted as sometimes having detrimental side effects, so long as the benefit outweighs the damage done. And in this case, nobody seems able to come up with any examples of real damage having actually been done. So, yeah, he's a hero, and it's about time to stop executing, assassinating and persecuting our heroes. Health, al-Aswad.

tweakabelle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 7:36:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad ~fr~ Manning is a hero, and deserves to be treated as such. A reprimande for being somewhat careless/indiscriminate is in order, and the time served should be enough to cover that. Note that I know people who would've prevented the 7/22 massacre up here if they had done what Manning did, and a lot more that are currently refusing to speak up about the fact that the details surrounding it are just the tip of the iceberg, and the event itself potentially the first pebble in a landslide... simply because people like Manning- the people who do the right thing, despite the potential cost- are treated like Manning was (and is, and probably will be). To secure enough evidence to make people listen is difficult. To present it so people care, even more so. I know this from personal experience. Being able to walk the fine line required to get the truth out and acted on, without potentially inflicting some collateral damage, is a rare trait that also requires rare circumstances. The documents leaked are too substantial to screen in detail, at least before someone catches on and prevents the alarm from being raised, and stripping it all down to a few core issues will lead to far less press than is required to actually get anything done. He could perhaps have done a coarse sort up front, but that shortcoming doesn't qualify for more than he's been through. When you want to make an omelette, it's inevitable that it'll be bad news for a few eggs. That's accepted in a lot of other areas. Doctors give patients medicines that can cause serious side effects, even death, because on the balance it will save more lives than doing nothing. Armies sacrifice troops to save more troops, or to accomplish objectives of perceived vital importance. Oil is consumed by probably just about everyone on this forum, despite it being a potential candidate for a crime against humanity to put oil to the crude uses we do (running out means an end to most plastics, many medicines, entire industries, and so forth), but it keeps our societies running. Nuclear power can be a real hazard, most recently in Fukushima, but along with the oil, it keeps the wheels turning so we don't have to die by the billions in going back to furs and sharpened sticks. Obviously, the French Revolution claimed some lives, too. There's no reason why whistleblowing shouldn't be accepted as sometimes having detrimental side effects, so long as the benefit outweighs the damage done. And in this case, nobody seems able to come up with any examples of real damage having actually been done. So, yeah, he's a hero, and it's about time to stop executing, assassinating and persecuting our heroes. Health, al-Aswad. This is an excellent post. It carries an incisive analysis and a compelling argument. Yes, Manning is a hero. Thanks Aswad.

kdsub -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 8:57:02 PM)
Mr. Manning swore to the following.. I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. He broke his sworn contract and deserves the penalties his crime entails. Butch

MrRodgers -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 9:52:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack No, actually, I'm curious about whether he was driven to leak the issue based on his horror at finding out that a government contractor was engaged in child prositition/slavery, or whether something else inspired him and it was only later after someone else read the documents that the Dynacorp details came out. This more a question out of personal interest/curiousity than it was the legal/moral ramifications of the Manning case but nevermind. If you want to discuss morals and ethics ... okay, I'm good with that. Are you claiming that there is no relevance in relating the harm caused by the leak vs. the good done by it? That if these 250,000+ documents only revealed some minor pucuniary activities, it would justify revealing NATO's list of sensitive targets worldwide publically? Surely any moral system would have some criteria for measuring/justify harm vs. good? Or are you arguing that there are unchanging eternal absolutes and some actions are so morally wrong that they should be prevented no matter the consequences or cost? Why he exposed what he did is irrelevant now. The over all point is that to agree with the poster that the death penalty or life in prison is his just sentence is to believe that truth...is treason.

MrRodgers -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 9:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Mr. Manning swore to the following.. I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. He broke his sworn contract and deserves the penalties his crime entails. Butch Show me where he broke that oath. I want a real case to not some fuzzy accusations complete with court precedent on illegal, criminal and immoral orders from those so-called 'appointed leaders.'

TheHeretic -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 10:08:08 PM)
Manning wasn't a "whistleblower," Aswad, and he's certainly no physician. He's a stupid, repugnant, little shit, who stole what he had sworn to protect, cast it to the winds, and then bragged about it online, to the wrong person. Butch (thanks) posted the oath Manning took, and violated. Now his defense may find some lofty appeal at the courts martial, but that will be a jump, starting from "he was upset that the Army wouldn't let him be a confused homosexual in search of himself, in public," to something noble. I suspect at least part of the reason the prosecution doesn't have treason on the table is that he was too dumb to have intent.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 10:21:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Considering that he could have violated DADT at any time, and pranced off with an (easily upgraded later) general discharge, should this even be given a scond of consideration as a mitigating factor in his case? No, it makes it worse. And I think you mean "scosche" not "scond". or was it a typo of "second"

InvisibleBlack -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 10:24:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Mr. Manning swore to the following.. I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. He broke his sworn contract and deserves the penalties his crime entails. Butch Show me where he broke that oath. I want a real case to not some fuzzy accusations complete with court precedent on illegal, criminal and immoral orders from those so-called 'appointed leaders.' The release of secret or classified information breaks that oath. Before you're given access to such information, they sit you down and explain to you in detail the duties and obligations inherent in having classified access. You also have to sign a document stating that you fully understand and agree to abide by these restrictions. While the UCMJ clearly states that you must refuse an illegal order - I'm not aware of anything in it that allows one to publically release classified information when becoming aware of illegal activities occuring elsewhere. Please note - I'm not saying that Manning was morally wrong. I am saying that, legally, he broke his oath of enlistment. All of that aside, they're going to squash him like a bug. They have to. They're going to make the most egregious example of him that they can so that the next person sitting in some bunker decrypting messages will think long and hard about sneaking any of this information out to the general public and then will shudder and turn away from doing so, lest they become another Manning.

Aylee -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/19/2011 10:48:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I suspect at least part of the reason the prosecution doesn't have treason on the table is that he was too dumb to have intent. Treason needs two witnesses.

farglebargle -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 3:57:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Mr. Manning swore to the following.. I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. He broke his sworn contract and deserves the penalties his crime entails. Butch "Domestic Enemies" of the Constitution include the US Companies who are selling little boys to Afghan Police to be their sex slaves and the US Legislators who support them. He obeyed his oath. Or don't you think "Child Sex Traffic" is as important as Terrorism? And the legal basis for his actions is "The Whistleblower Protection Act" of 1989...

Aswad -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 5:34:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Manning wasn't a "whistleblower," Aswad, and he's certainly no physician. He's a stupid, repugnant, little shit, who stole what he had sworn to protect, cast it to the winds, and then bragged about it online, to the wrong person. foreign and domestic My point still stands. Health, al-Aswad.

kdsub -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 5:45:33 AM)
quote: I'm not saying that Manning was morally wrong It was morally wrong…We and he had and have no idea of the intent of his superiors in regard to the classified information he released. He may have put innocent lives in danger. He didn't care...so I don't care about him. Butch

truckinslave -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 6:54:05 AM)
quote: I hope they Danny Deever him. God, you're a heartless bitch.

truckinslave -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 7:04:59 AM)
quote: And the legal basis for his actions is "The Whistleblower Protection Act" of 1989... Is there any basis in law to believe the referenced Act applies to the military? If said basis exists, is there any reason in law to believe it supercedes the UCMJ when it conflicts with regulations concerning the release of classified information? If said basis exists, is there any reason to believe it supercedes the oath Manning took when he received his security clearance? If said basis exists, is there any reason in law to believe it supercedes the oath that is the basis of military service? You're pissing into the wind, legally speaking. I could write my own book from the early/middle 70s. Most of it is declassified, perhaps, and almost certainly not of interest to the US Army, or anyone else. But the oath had no expiration date.

truckinslave -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 7:06:47 AM)
All that to say: "if the end is something I desire, it is justified by the means". If this guy is a hero to you, and all your heroes are like him, then persecution and death to your heroes is the order of the day.

mnottertail -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 7:20:23 AM)
And there will be many of us veterans who would stand against those who are so unAmerican as to try to prosecute that scumbag shit .

Aswad -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 9:58:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave All that to say: "if the end is something I desire, it is justified by the means". Hardly. As I pointed out, what he did was a credit to his country, and something that should've been done far more often. He didn't do it as well as he maybe could've. But I would argue it is in line with the idea of protecting the country from domestic threats. If you revisit your history in terms of military and foreign policy, it should be trivial to see just how much shit the country could've not been in, had there been more men like Manning over the years. I get slapping him for the leak being indiscriminate, and say the time served so far more than redresses that, as well as serving as an appropriate deterrent against the threshold for speaking up dropping to a point where people speak up at inappropriate times. What remains is to recognize him for the good he has done. If following orders blindly is the only badge of merit to you, that's a view I can happily file away along with the implicit endorsements of the rape of Nanking, the Armenian Solution and the Holocaust. In my view, and the view of servicemen here, the point about domestic threats definitely extends to taking steps when one's superiors turn into domestic threats. It is part and parcel of keeping a healthy military that is capable of more than just senseless carnage. Health, al-Aswad.

Aylee -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 10:14:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: I hope they Danny Deever him. God, you're a heartless bitch. I figure that once he is hung by the neck until dead ,he will not have to worry about being in an "awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically" anymore. See how compassionate I am! [:)]

Sanity -> RE: Manning case moving forward (12/20/2011 11:39:52 AM)
Amen to that quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave All that to say: "if the end is something I desire, it is justified by the means". If this guy is a hero to you, and all your heroes are like him, then persecution and death to your heroes is the order of the day.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125